A question for those of you who frequent contests...

[Scale-Master]

Oh, it makes sense and I don't know why this conversation would blow up, I am enjoying this exchange of ideas and viewpoints without a bunch of drama.

I guess the bottom line is the contest rules need to be finite and available to all contestants prior to the event. Everyone needs to know the parameters. We have already discussed the judges responsibilities to apply them.
But if result is to be rewarding the builder for creating the best model in said competition, using work done by someone else should not be allowed. After all, the model is the sum of its parts. How is one to separate the effort invested in some parts for other parts farmed out?

I agree with you that there are many models out there that are not 100% the work of the builder. I take pride in not farming work out for mine, (it is my choice whether I intend to enter it in a contest or park it on a shelf). But even though the rules state it should be the sole work of the entrant, it seems it is an unenforced rule.
Now, if we are talking about 100% SB models, I think all the parts should be made by the builder if used for competition. Modified kits could be allowed a bit more latitude, but I still subscribe to do it all (what I can make) myself, and do without if I can't make it.

Would it be fair to allow a builder to have his friend paint part of his model and still enter it in competition? If not, why is it different for making the parts?

What if the parts made by someone other than :the builder" are the tipping points for the win in a contest against someone who made the entire model himself? All things being equal, if parts made by another are considered, it does not seem fair to the person who did follow the sole work stipulation.

It is interesting you used the example of a fire extinguisher. Some might say it is just another minor detail. But I put a lot of effort into scratchbuilding this one:


Arguably a model in its own right, and I consider it a significant part of the overall build, along with every other sub-assembly. The compilation of all the sub-assemblies make up the whole of the model.
If a judge thought this extinguisher was the deciding factor between two otherwise equal builds, would it be fair if I if I claimed it was my work if it wasn't?
Therefore, should not every part that was farmed out or otherwise not made by the builder be listed to be fair to all entrants?

[racer93]

What I intended by my statement about "farming out work" was, for example the turning of a part on a lathe. ANYTHING else needs to be done by the model maker. I feel that any painting or adding of detail to the part is part of "construction" of the model and should be done by the entrant and should NOT be "farmed out". I was speaking of only buying the basic part (resin, metal, whatever) and you as the maker do whatever needs to be done beyond that.

I meant ONLY THE BOTTLE being turned and nothing else. I meant it as a simple example, and of course I end up beating myself with my example... Yours is beautiful, by the way!

The way I see it is everyone has access to modeling boards like this one (if not in home, libraries). Thus, everyone has the opportunity to ask if there are people willing to do commission work on their lathe. Therefore, if anyone has work done, it is an equal playing field. (In addition, you can get this on the open market though several sources.)

To your question about equal up to that point. If you did all detailing, painting, decaling, etc., EXCEPT for the actual turning of the bottle, I'd say the work is yours and you should win. Now, if you did nothing and your friend did all the work and the friend is not credited in the build, then no. (I have friends that team up on dioramas in the military area and have seen this at work.) I just don't see the difference between having someone mill/lathe something like this vs buying it from Parts by Parks or whomever. Just not that much difference, in my mind. Again, if the detail work is done for you, that is something entirely different.

Great discussion and good questions! I hope I get the opportunity to talk to you in person sometime.

[Scale-Master]

Maybe the key wording is along the line of raw materials?

Using the extinguisher example again...

A basic aluminum bottle is purchased from an aftermarket supplier, or turned by a commissioned machinist available to other modelers.
No difference.

Same two choices above against the bottle being created by the builder. The builder should get "extra credit" for making his own.
But that only works if all are executed with equal quality.

I guess a lot of my perspective comes from competing against models with bought parts versus parts created solely by the builder, (or included in the kit).

But going back to the discussion about scratchbuilding, I still think the builder should be the one creating all the parts. Of course this all means very little when the arena of competition is removed from the equation, except for bragging rights and bench racing.

I think we are seeing the whole of the matter very similarly. And yes, a good civil discussion. Thanks for allowing me to share my opinions.

[racer93]

Not a problem! I always enjoy picking the brains of people, especially those that are good at what they do (like you).

As to the extra credit for making your own, I don't agree. I wish I could have a lathe and mill but I just can't. I'm disabled and fighting with insurance and SS, so I have less than any income. (Thank goodness for my wife!) I'm hoping to save up for one later when my ship comes in. Point is, if I could, I would. However, I can't. So should I have points deducted (effectively) because I *can't* make my own?

As I said, I hope that we're able to meet up sometime. Kinda hard, seeing you're on the Left Coast and I'm in the eastern flyover country...

[drunken monkey]

something else just came to my mind once you guys started to talk about machined parts and whatnot.

Let's say I make transkits and resin kits for limited sale.
In order to make those transkits and resin kits, I have to master a hell of a lot of parts to the point that the original kit I might have based it on is no longer present in any form in my transkit and/or resin kits.

A customer purchases one of my kits, builds it and enters it into a competition correctly as a built kit.

Now, if I were to build one of my own kits and enter it into the same competition, should it it be labeled a scratch built model or a kit built model?

[racer93]

To me, it would be a 'normal' kit. I guess I should have been clearer--what I am referring to (and granted, it is the extreme) is the 100% or close to that car. Thus, in my mind, DM would have an altered kit, but a kit nonetheless. It would be like Johnson Tang (owner of Top Studio) entering a MotoGP bike with one of his upgrade sets. It's still a kit, just detailed.

[Scale-Master]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

something else just came to my mind once you guys started to talk about machined parts and whatnot.

Let's say I make transkits and resin kits for limited sale.
In order to make those transkits and resin kits, I have to master a hell of a lot of parts to the point that the original kit I might have based it on is no longer present in any form in my transkit and/or resin kits.

A customer purchases one of my kits, builds it and enters it into a competition correctly as a built kit.

Now, if I were to build one of my own kits and enter it into the same competition, should it it be labeled a scratch built model or a kit built model?

Well, in my opinion... If you modified an existing body to make the master for your kit, and cast the parts yourself, it could be entered by only you in Major Conversion, but still not as ScratchBuilt.
If you used a kit part or body not made from scratch by you to modify, it is still not SB.

In addition, you would need to provide some documentation that this kit is really something you mastered and cast your self.

Anyone else using the same kit you produced would not have earned the prestige of entering in the usually higher level of required work class.

But you would still be bound by the same rules of judging, and possibly tougher competition. And if there were inaccuracies, you would have to bear the brunt for that, you could not blame the kit.

This is all hypothetical, I do not know if you have actually produced a kit.

[drunken monkey]

it is all hyperthetical and purely for the sake of the discussion.
it's just one of those things that makes me question just how you would categorise comprehensively and fairly if you would go down that route.

i think it would've made more sense if i had stuck with a 100% hand made resin kit for the example.

my point is, in that scenario, you end up with the odd situation where two people with the same model made from the same 'kit' except one guy scratch built it in the first place.
i can see that the maker can enter it as a scratchbuilt but the buyer can only enter it as a kit but there's still something odd about it.

another question is, if the competition standard for the scratchbuilt catagory is geared towards the big scale highly engineered kits, is that fair for the little guy who just wanted to sculpt a car in 1/24 that doesn't exist in a kit?

[karmodeler2]

Originally Posted by racer93

The way I see it is everyone has access to modeling boards like this one (if not in home, libraries). Thus, everyone has the opportunity to ask if there are people willing to do commission work on their lathe. Therefore, if anyone has work done, it is an equal playing field. (In addition, you can get this on the open market though several sources.)

If everyone has access to go and find people to do
"commission work", then why is it only limited to the turned metal parts?

What if I find a company that can make molds and cast some offspring from some of my masters and commission them to do that? Why can't I have some one like Bob Downie commissioned to paint my cars?

I think you are going down an EXTREMELY slippery slope when you allow one aspect of the model to be farmed out and not the others.

A model event/contest is just that: a competition.

There are going to be losers and winners. I have been both and when I lose, I make the choice to be better. Not farm my work out. The only way you are going to be a better modeler is to do the work yourself. NOT have someone do it for you.

If I get beat by someone who farmed out 90% of their model, then so be it. It's a competition. But I can tell you that the next one I bring is going to be tough to beat. And the work will be mine. If for some reason it's not, it will be annotated as such.

I saw a model at GSL by Ricky Couch that was jaw dropping. It could have won it's class on any day. But Ricky credited Jerel Wolfe for doing some of the metal work. He earned a lessor trophy for this, but he was HONEST in the fact that he did not do all the work. I think this caliber of person is the one who sets the example for the rest of us to follow. If you did not do the work, you should document that on the sheet with your model.

But wait........that would make me less of a builder in the eyes of my competitors, right?

David

(note: the words in this response are the sole work of the one responding and have not been influenced or farmed out from other sources)

[racer93]

Originally Posted by karmodeler2

If everyone has access to go and find people to do
"commission work", then why is it only limited to the turned metal parts?

What if I find a company that can make molds and cast some offspring from some of my masters and commission them to do that? Why can't I have some one like Bob Downie commissioned to paint my cars?

I think you are going down an EXTREMELY slippery slope when you allow one aspect of the model to be farmed out and not the others.

A model event/contest is just that: a competition.

There are going to be losers and winners. I have been both and when I lose, I make the choice to be better. Not farm my work out. The only way you are going to be a better modeler is to do the work yourself. NOT have someone do it for you.

If I get beat by someone who farmed out 90% of their model, then so be it. It's a competition. But I can tell you that the next one I bring is going to be tough to beat. And the work will be mine. If for some reason it's not, it will be annotated as such.

I saw a model at GSL by Ricky Couch that was jaw dropping. It could have won it's class on any day. But Ricky credited Jerel Wolfe for doing some of the metal work. He earned a lessor trophy for this, but he was HONEST in the fact that he did not do all the work. I think this caliber of person is the one who sets the example for the rest of us to follow. If you did not do the work, you should document that on the sheet with your model.

But wait........that would make me less of a builder in the eyes of my competitors, right?

David

(note: the words in this response are the sole work of the one responding and have not been influenced or farmed out from other sources)

The only reason why turned metal parts were mentioned is that was the situation. It was fairly clear to most (I thought) that it was only for the turning of the piece, no other work at all. I consider the "construction" of the kit to be the assemblage and painting thereof, *not buying a part*, which this was.

What if that "farmed out" work was paid for? How is that different from ordering a specific request from an aftermarket manufacturer?

I do not see this as a slipperly slope. I honestly do not see this any differently as buying an aftermarket item. So is it wrong to ask Robert at RB Motion to do something he offers? Sure, you can say "...with RB Motion parts" but is that correct (according to your definition)? Seems like he'd be co-builder. That's a bit extreme.

I take a bit of offense at your suggestion that I would "farm out work" so I wouldn't lose. That's an unfounded statement for you to make. There are pieces on everyone's models that weren't "made" by them. Whether it be a resin piece or a turned bolt head, that's not your work and should be noted as such. Really? I say that I have certain aftermarket p/e or detail sets and I think that's where it ends. I do all my own construction, painting and scratchbuilding where needed. I add pieces to my kits that make it better that are made by others, such as Johnson Tang at Top Studio. Should I list him as a co-builder? I have resin and turned metal pieces from him on some of my entries. He didn't help me build my kit, though. Just provided me with the opportunity to make a better kit. But, I guess I should get a lower award because of it via your logic.

I think we should just agree to disagree. I don't think either of us will change our positions...

[lumpulus]

Gonna have to agree with racer93 on this one....aftermarket parts, whether bought as a set, or commisioned, etc, still have to be assembled, painted, etc by the builder. It woulld be one thing if only a certain # of people had access to lathes and magnetic polishers, to name two, but now everyone can get these tools.

If someone was talking about someone else actually building all or part of a model, now that would be frowned upon, but truthfully, there is no way to "police" that...you have to rely on people's integrity.

[Scale-Master]

Going back to the analogy of someone mastering (from scratch for sake of discussion) and entering the assembled the subsequent kit available to everyone in a SB only category. There is something odd about it. While it technically would be fair, is there a benefit?

I can honestly claim that I drew the art for the decals for hundreds of production kits. Should I then take credit for creating the art that I used on an Out Of The Box model that looks identical to all the other kits built using the kit decals? I don't know what benefit that would afford, or what difference it would make.
So while it is not improper to claim credit for the mastering of kit parts (when being truthful), in the long run I doubt it would make much of a difference in a contest.

Karmodeler2 made some excellent points regarding farming out work. Just where do you draw the line? Ironically I judged (along with other judges) that Ricky Couch car (red Corvette) mentioned when it was entered at the 2005 GSL.
I was against it being given The Augie (Best Machining) award the other judges wanted to bestow on it due to its great machine work because that work was not done by the builder. Thankfully Ricky was honest.
As an aside, he did win that award that year, but for another model (a little trike) he did do all the work on. Would it have been fair to give that prestigious award to someone else who farmed out the machine work but did not mention it? I think not.

I am wondering why it is viewed as acceptable by many to farm machine work out, but almost unanimously agree it is not fair to farm paint work out?
Many machined parts are finished by the machinist, so the argument of the builder needing to finish them and therefore getting some credit for their being does not always apply.

If someone farmed out a SB intake manifold with carbs that included pattern making and machining for example, and they were fully finished (by the "farmer"? "commissioned builder"?) and added to an otherwise 100% scratchbuilt model by "the builder"... Would that be deemed the same as commissioning machined parts? It included painting/finishing of those parts. Just wondering... My opinion is no, it should not be allowed, just as it is frowned upon to have another paint for you.

A point is made that not everyone has access to certain machines like lathes and magnetic polishers. True, but not everyone has access to airbrushes. That is not met with the same reasoning as towards lathes or mills. I don't have a magnetic polisher and would not be concerned if someone I am competing against does. (BTW, What is a magnetic polisher?)
For every machined part I make there is the possibility for me to make it well, or poorly. Same as when assembling an Out Of the Box kit. It's not the wand, it is how the magician uses it.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by Scale-Master

Going back to the analogy of someone mastering (from scratch for sake of discussion) and entering the assembled the subsequent kit available to everyone in a SB only category. There is something odd about it. While it technically would be fair, is there a benefit?

It wasn't intended as a point to discuss whether or not there is any benefit to it, more to do with how far ranging "scratch built" can be as a category unto itself. At the lower end such as in the example I gave, it is pretty much the same as a regular kit build once the initial mastering has been done.

Originally Posted by Scale-Master

A point is made that not everyone has access to certain machines like lathes and magnetic polishers. True, but not everyone has access to airbrushes. That is not met with the same reasoning as towards lathes or mills.

And again, this was what I was alluding to when I mentioned how many categories can be drawn up if one was to be fair across the board.

I also can't see how you can say that someone who makes something doesn't deserve more credit than someone who buys something.

[Scale-Master]

"I also can't see how you can say that someone who makes something doesn't deserve more credit than someone who buys something. "

I honestly don't see how you took that away from what wrote. My opinion is a full 180 degrees from your statement.

Someone who makes something clearly does deserve more credit than someone who just buys something. But, if someone makes something and it is sub-standard, it should not be considered "better" by default.
I do believe I have been consistent in my stand on this matter.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by Scale-Master

"I also can't see how you can say that someone who makes something doesn't deserve more credit than someone who buys something. "

I honestly don't see how you took that away from what wrote. My opinion is a full 180 degrees from your statement.

Someone who makes something clearly does deserve more credit than someone who just buys something. But, if someone makes something and it is sub-standard, it should not be considered "better" by default.
I do believe I have been consistent in my stand on this matter.

sorry, i missed a quote there.
that line wasn't a response to what you wrote.
It was a response to this:

Originally Posted by racer93

As to the extra credit for making your own, I don't agree